1 2025:CGHC:43476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4516 of 2025 Shivdayal Pathak S/o Rameshwar Pathak Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Khamahariya, Tehsil Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, 1-13, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tahsildar Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case from the Respondent Authorities. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.08.29 15:40:01 +0530 2 10.2 Issue a Writ/Order/Direction directing the Respondent Authorities to decide the application of the Petitioner within stipulated time, in accordance with law. 10.3 Issue a Writ/Order/Direction directing the Respondent Authorities to pay adequate compensation to the Petitioner for violating his rights; 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by the present petition, the petitioner is not seeking any quashment, but is bringing to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the respondent authorities are acting in an arbitrary manner. Although the petitioner, being the bhumi-swami, is entitled to demarcation of his land under Section 129 and other related provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the demarcation has not been completed to date; the petitioner submitted an application on 05.03.2025, yet for one reason or another the process has not been concluded. Consequently, the petitioner is unable to use his land, as certain persons are preventing him from entering his own property and reaping its benefits. Some State officers are acting hand in glove with these persons to ensure that demarcation is not carried out. This is therefore a case in which the interference of this Court is required to compel the authorities to act in accordance with the law. 3 3. Learned State counsel contended that the concerned authority is ready to consider and decide the application/representation of the petitioner as per law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing to respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) to consider and decide the Annexure P-2 & Annexure P-5 expeditiously preferably within a period of ‘03 months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant